CDZ How Does Sanders Plan to Pay for Free College Education?

[Unkotare]

...


It is an attractive idea to think of paying down the national debt by cutting federal spending on health, education and welfare -- particularly if you are one of those resentful white folks that thing your standard of living is being gobbled upo by blacks, Mexicans, immigrants, welfare queens, layabouts etc. It is attractive but it isn't realistic.....

Race card played and failed.

 

[Fishlore]

...


It is an attractive idea to think of paying down the national debt by cutting federal spending on health, education and welfare -- particularly if you are one of those resentful white folks that thing your standard of living is being gobbled upo by blacks, Mexicans, immigrants, welfare queens, layabouts etc. It is attractive but it isn't realistic.....

Race card played and failed.

This dishevelled laddie seems to think he has been appointed referee in a notional card game that is happening in his head. "Race card" is a cliche used by those who have neither the information nor the capacity to think about social issues. To declare it "played" is to indulge in a useless metaphor that contributes nothing to the dialogue. As with most right wing posts, there is no evidence presented and no logical exposition, just a string of jejune cliches that are themselves content free. It is a sad commentary on our public schools to see this sort of thing posted for the world to see.

 

[Fishlore]

Of course conservatives don't defend Social Security. Social Security is socialism. It is not an investment, it is not insurance. It is a trans-generational tax program which creates a minimum safety net for old and disabled people who cannot work. The very idea is anethama to conservatives.

In their view, society equals statism equals government theft. For conservatives life is a zero-sum game in which whoever dies with the most money wins. Losers should have the good manners to wander into the forest and die. Only a tiny minority of people used to believe this unChristian, unAmerican nonsense until Big Business began pumping the idea over the airwaves as a stalking horse for political corruption by the Robber Barons.

 

[320 Years of History]

As with most right wing posts, there is no evidence presented and no logical exposition, just a string of jejune cliches that are themselves content free. It is a sad commentary on our public schools to see this sort of thing posted for the world to see.

The anonymity of the Internet is, IMO, the cause of that. Were these folks to have found themselves in a forum such as those of Ancient Greece or Rome, they'd find themselves laughed out or declared comics.

 

[OnePercenter]

How could it be paid for??
That's easy....just take one month worth of corporate welfare that this administrations gave out - and you could pay for everyone's college for a whole year.
So which is worse? Taking your money and giving it to Wall Street and big business...or to students?

How could it be paid for??
That's easy....just take one month worth of corporate welfare that this administrations gave out - and you could pay for everyone's college for a whole year.
So which is worse? Taking your money and giving it to Wall Street and big business...or to students?

ALL corporate welfare has been brought to you by rules and laws written by Republicans.

Obama is making another attempt at ending inversion.

 

[320 Years of History]

How could it be paid for??
That's easy....just take one month worth of corporate welfare that this administrations gave out - and you could pay for everyone's college for a whole year.
So which is worse? Taking your money and giving it to Wall Street and big business...or to students?

How could it be paid for??
That's easy....just take one month worth of corporate welfare that this administrations gave out - and you could pay for everyone's college for a whole year.
So which is worse? Taking your money and giving it to Wall Street and big business...or to students?

ALL corporate welfare has been brought to you by rules and laws written by Republicans.

Obama is making another attempt at ending inversion.

Red:
That is a factual exaggeration. It'd take the equivalent of about one year's corporate welfare to pay for one year of "college for everyone."

Even as someone who benefits from those subsidies and tax breaks, the ethical and philosophical shortfalls of corporate subsidies isn't lost on me. It may be that I'm "biting the hand that feeds me," but I think that the breaks the government gives businesses are wrong in multiple dimensions.

• Profit is enough of a motive on its own. That which isn't profitable is rightly something businesses should eschew doing. I detest the idea and verity of the government intervening to make profitable that (specific goods, specific companies, and/or specific industries) which the invisible hands of supply and demand would make extinct.
• The reality of how corporate/business taxes work these days is such that how much they pay as income tax is irrelevant because they get it back as a subsidy or future tax break. It's more a matter of "arbitrage via the tax code" than it is their fair contribution to the betterment for all of the nation to which they pay the tax. The system, at a high level is one that can been viewed schematically as:
  • Monday --> Corp. gives Gov't $.
  • Tuesday --> Gov't gives Corp $$
  • Wednesday --> Corp gives Gov't $$$
  • ...and so on.
• It'd be different, or at least I'd feel differently about it, were individuals accorded comparable "back and forth," but they are not. If one is stably middle class or higher in income, one pays and gets nothing other than general services. Individuals (most of us who aren't Trump, Gates, Buffet et al) don't get bills and regulations structured for our individual benefit. If one is well off enough, one will find oneself having enough in common with the Trumps and Gates of the world to benefit from the "carve outs" that appear in bills and regulations, but that's not the situation of most of the electorate, yet most of the electorate is who must, at least in part, pay for those carved out subsidies and tax breaks. To me, that's just wrong.
  
  I don't mind that my tax dollar gets used to feed, clothe, educate, house, etc. destitute Tilly and her two kids. I'd rather they be self-sufficient, but if they aren't, well, I have a moral duty to help keep them going until they can be. The government is best situated to (1) find Tilly and (2) undertake the necessary actions to keep her alive and healthy. I'm not thrilled I need to support doing so, but I don't mind doing so because the sum I must pay to do so is negligible relative to the sums I pay overall.
  
  What I mind is when XYZ, Inc., in its quest for ever greater profits/profit margins asks for and gets a subsidy that allows it to persist in doing what it's long done and thereby collecting an extra X millions (or more) in profit. What I want to see is companies forced to innovate to find their profits. I'm perfectly fine with un-innovative companies going the way of the dodo. Being forced to innovate to maintain/grow profit streams is what produces jobs and makes for continuous improvement for everyone involved. Subsidies and tax breaks merely allow companies to avoid having to innovate.
• I don't mind the government funding "this or that" research by spending my tax dollar with XYZ, Inc. and/or several of its competitors. I do have a problem with those companies getting exclusive rights to what they discover using that funding. I know just as anyone does that it's all but impossible to say that for a given research project into some new innovation what share of the discoveries accrued from the government (public) funding and what share is due to the company's investment.
  
  I'm not saying XYZ, Inc. be forced to accept the public funding, but I am saying that if they do, they should not get exclusive rights to it or anything evolved from it for the next lustrum to decade after announcing the "terminal" discovery or critical factor that makes "whatever" now possible and profitable.
  
  The key point I'm making is that companies, like individuals, need to make it on their own and unlike individuals, they can be allowed to perish because companies, notwithstanding the ideas of "too big to fail" and "corporate personhood," quite simply are not humans. I care about companies, but not before humans.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Some useful data from here.

Bernie Sanders on Education

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/04/nyregion/across-europe-an-outcry-over-paying-for-college.html

This Country Just Abolished College Tuition Fees

England Student Debt Unprecedented as Government Shifts Funding
Statements by Sanders onhow he plans to pay for this free education.

My proposal is to put a speculation tax on wall street, raise very substantial sums of money, not only make public colleges and universities tuition-free, but also substantially lower interest rates on student debt. You have families out there paying 6 percent, 8 percent, 10 percent on student debt, refinance their homes at 3 percent.
.....
SANDERS: No, it is an extraordinary investment for this country. Germany & many other countries do it already. This is revolutionary for education in America. It will give hope to millions of young people.

Q: And you want to have the states pay for about 1/3 of this $70 billion plan, correct?

SANDERS: Yes. Bottom line here is, in the year 2015, we should look at a college degree the same way we looked at a high school degree 50 or 60 years ago. If you want to make it into the middle class, the bottom line now, is in America, in the year 2015, any person who has the ability and the desire should be able to get an education, college education, regardless of the income of his or her family. And we must substantially lower, as my legislation does, interest rates on student debt.
.....

On Education: Two years free tuition at state colleges. Reform student loans.

Sanders would provide $18 billion to state governments to allow them to cut tuition at state colleges by 55 percent. And he would allow anyone paying off a student loan currently to refinance at a lower rate.
.....

So the best I can find so far is that Sanders wants to:
1. Give federal money, not much really, $18 billion to states to cut state tuitions in half.
2. Impose a 'Speculation Tax' on Wall Street. Dont see a problem with taking some whore and blow money away from these scoundrels.
3. Lower interest rates on existing student loans.

Not sure if he plans to make private colleges and Universities also free tuition or not.

We I putting this plan together, I would only offer free tuition for those who first went to a community college and then to a state college. For those who went to a state university for the full 4 years, I think I would offer then a package of grants, student work and interest free loans that allowed them to attend the school. This would give schools in the private sector an incentive to reduce costs to lure more students.

I would also ban the expenditure of any state run universities and colleges from major college sports programs, capping it in some fashion.

We need to return our colleges to first educating Americans and to not being profit driven.

Has anyone else obtained any other details of how Sanders plans to fund his free college idea?

Ahh....yea....duh, It's called a credit card with your name on it. You spent a lot of time looking at numbers when all you need to look at is the big one called the national debt.....$19 trillion and counting. Perhaps it's obscured by being so obvious.

It is an attractive idea to think of paying down the national debt by cutting federal spending on health, education and welfare -- particularly if you are one of those resentful white folks that thing your standard of living is being gobbled upo by blacks, Mexicans, immigrants, welfare queens, layabouts etc. It is attractive but it isn't realistic.

The national debt must be paid off bond by bond as it comes due. Further debt can be avoided by raising taxes on those who have the money to pay them. Cutting services to the poor, the disabledm the elderly etc. isn't a workable plan because the social destruction such reductions would create cost more to fix than the amount saved.

I know these are unpleasant truths and seem counter-intuitive to those who think of the national economy in kitchen table terms, but that is why economics is a science. The angry resentment is a political manipulation by the 1%.

LOL, no, its not quite that simple, dude.


Read it again and pay attention this time, lol.

I don't need to read it again. I have been alive long enough to see that what the federal government spends is independent of the amount of tax they collect. Therefore any plan they have for paying for the next entitlement is simply a justification to enact the entitlement. Remember, they had a plan for social security too.

You will be pleasantly surprised to learn that in all its long history, Social Security has never borrowed a dime; in fact, the program is prohibited by law from borrowing money.

You may unpleasantly surprised to learn that the social security fund has no cash, but rather a bunch of IOUs from the federal government. The point is these guys will spend what they want and send you the tab.

Oh, I'm not despondent or alarmed over the well-known fact that SS has been buying Treasury bonds. Those "IOUs" as you so delicately call them, are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government and, under the XIV Amendment, cannot be defaulted upon. Uncle Sam would have to sell nukes to North Korea if necessary, but Social Security is going to be repaid.

As you probably know, FICA tax is not collected on income over $118,500. Raising that cap will sufficiently increase SS revenues to cover all obligations into the foreseeable future. Bernie Sanders has advocated removing the cap entirely. Medicare is not capped. Such a change would leave SS rolling in dough.

Then there is widely popular proposal to reduce SS payments on a sliding scale for retirees with high incomes. This too would remove all financial pressure from the Social Security program. Social Security is the most popular federal program in the history of the United States. Every GOP politician who tries to monkey with it is immediately catapulted into the Outer Darkness. Americans love socialism, they just don't understand the term.

Red:
Though I'm not keen on the idea of raising or removing the cap, I could live with it were that alone a change policy makers implement and were SS's benefits paid out in accordance with the higher sums paid in.

Blue:
That is unacceptable to me. It is because the whole point of SSI is that it's essentially a mandatory retirement provision that allows one to have retirement income commensurate with one's contributions to SSI. In other words, what one contributes to SSI is meant to benefit oneself (or one's family members). As it is now, if one dies before collecting the sum corresponding to what one contributed over the course of one's career, the money one (or one's spouse) contributed is effectively lost.

Other:
My personal preference is now and always has been that SSI be made optional for everyone; however, that may defeat the "forced to provide for one's retirement" intent. Accordingly, I would be fine with the idea that one must be at or above a given earnings level before it becomes optional -- the idea being that at or above a given level, one should not need to be forced to save for one's retirement. I don't want to see us become a nation wherein millions of average wage earners have no source of retirement income, but I also don't see the point in high earners being forced to contribute to a retirement plan for which they have no real need.

Also, I'd strongly prefer that SSI be returned to its original design whereby it was quite literally a forced savings account. Would doing that impose a burden on current contributors and beneficiaries? Yes, it would; however, it eases, indeed eliminates, the burden and risk for future generations. Given the choice between "biting the bullet" myself or unavoidably making my kids and grandkids do so, I'll always choose to "take the heat" instead of making them do so. Such is my view of trade-off between leaving the world better for my descendants than it was when I entered it and making the world better for myself now.

Why not remove the cap and let people have a choice of three options:
1. Letting it stay in the same program management scheme it is in. No change for that person at all.

2. Allowing people to manage their SS funds like a 401k. the money is invested by people at the Social Security Administration who would hire the best portfolio managers and hedge fund managers to do so. Downside to this, of course, is that Congress cant keep borrowing from these funds, but I think Congress should ween itself off of Social Security funds any way.

3. A hybrid option of taking some Social Security funds out an managing them like a 401k and also leaving however much they want to in the system.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Of course conservatives don't defend Social Security. Social Security is socialism. It is not an investment, it is not insurance. It is a trans-generational tax program which creates a minimum safety net for old and disabled people who cannot work. The very idea is anethama to conservatives.

And yet it began in German y by Otto von Bismark,t he arch-conservative of Europe for generations.

It is not quite as simple as left vrs right, laddie.

 

[JimBowie1958]

As with most right wing posts, there is no evidence presented and no logical exposition, just a string of jejune cliches that are themselves content free. It is a sad commentary on our public schools to see this sort of thing posted for the world to see.

The anonymity of the Internet is, IMO, the cause of that. Were these folks to have found themselves in a forum such as those of Ancient Greece or Rome, they'd find themselves laughed out or declared comics.

Lol, really?

I think William F Buckley, George will, Charles Krauthammer, and Pat Buchanan can handle themselves well enough, thank you.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Some useful data from here.

Bernie Sanders on Education

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/04/nyregion/across-europe-an-outcry-over-paying-for-college.html

This Country Just Abolished College Tuition Fees

England Student Debt Unprecedented as Government Shifts Funding
Statements by Sanders onhow he plans to pay for this free education.

My proposal is to put a speculation tax on wall street, raise very substantial sums of money, not only make public colleges and universities tuition-free, but also substantially lower interest rates on student debt. You have families out there paying 6 percent, 8 percent, 10 percent on student debt, refinance their homes at 3 percent.
.....
SANDERS: No, it is an extraordinary investment for this country. Germany & many other countries do it already. This is revolutionary for education in America. It will give hope to millions of young people.

Q: And you want to have the states pay for about 1/3 of this $70 billion plan, correct?

SANDERS: Yes. Bottom line here is, in the year 2015, we should look at a college degree the same way we looked at a high school degree 50 or 60 years ago. If you want to make it into the middle class, the bottom line now, is in America, in the year 2015, any person who has the ability and the desire should be able to get an education, college education, regardless of the income of his or her family. And we must substantially lower, as my legislation does, interest rates on student debt.
.....

On Education: Two years free tuition at state colleges. Reform student loans.

Sanders would provide $18 billion to state governments to allow them to cut tuition at state colleges by 55 percent. And he would allow anyone paying off a student loan currently to refinance at a lower rate.
.....

So the best I can find so far is that Sanders wants to:
1. Give federal money, not much really, $18 billion to states to cut state tuitions in half.
2. Impose a 'Speculation Tax' on Wall Street. Dont see a problem with taking some whore and blow money away from these scoundrels.
3. Lower interest rates on existing student loans.

Not sure if he plans to make private colleges and Universities also free tuition or not.

We I putting this plan together, I would only offer free tuition for those who first went to a community college and then to a state college. For those who went to a state university for the full 4 years, I think I would offer then a package of grants, student work and interest free loans that allowed them to attend the school. This would give schools in the private sector an incentive to reduce costs to lure more students.

I would also ban the expenditure of any state run universities and colleges from major college sports programs, capping it in some fashion.

We need to return our colleges to first educating Americans and to not being profit driven.

Has anyone else obtained any other details of how Sanders plans to fund his free college idea?

It will not happen seeing Congress will be held by the GOP if he become President...

 

[320 Years of History]

2. Allowing people to manage their SS funds like a 401k. the money is invested by people at the Social Security Administration who would hire the best portfolio managers and hedge fund managers to do so. Downside to this, of course, is that Congress cant keep borrowing from these funds, but I think Congress should ween itself off of Social Security funds any way.

3. A hybrid option of taking some Social Security funds out an managing them like a 401k and also leaving however much they want to in the system.

The reason for not choosing either option 2 or 3 is risk. Because SSI is people's money that is effectively being managed by the government, and because unlike one's 401k funds, it must be there when folks retire, the risk profile of SSI cash cannot be such that the money may not be there when folks are entitled to begin receiving what is effectively their own money.

The current investments of SSI, U.S. T-Bills is such that if that money cannot and will not be returned to SSI, there are bigger problems than whether folks, even many millions of folks, get their monthly SSI check. Also, even if folks were to accept a higher risk profile for their SSI money, and if as a result of their accepting that higher risk it occurs that they won't receive the SSI payment the program promises them, the country will still have an obligation to care for them under welfare and Medicaid.

Moreover, not receiving their expected SSI payments because the money was invested in higher risk instruments that lost rather than gained value leaves the SSI beneficiaries/recipients without money they expected to have available to pay their bills. At that point it doesn't matter whether those folks have an obligation to pay for their electricity, water, food, clothing, etc., if there's simply no money to give to their creditors, the creditors have to write off the debt and move on. You can't get blood from a turnip, no matter how hard you try.

That just increases costs for businesses, costs that get passed on folks who are to greater and lesser extents not depending entirely on their SSI payments. You see all the harganging and griping about paying the small pittance share of one's taxes that go to SNAP and other assistance programs today. Imagine what you'd hear were the situation compounded by having to make up for the shortfall in actual cash received by SSI recipients who agreed to accept higher risk profiles and lost rather than made out. We'd find ourselves in outright and open revolt by the masses. That won't be good for anyone, not even and least of all the revolting masses.

 

[rdean]

When I first heard about it, I thought it was a scam. Then I read what Politifact wrote and that convinced me it's a scam.

Bernie Sanders says Wall Street tax would pay for his free tuition plan

 

[320 Years of History]

As with most right wing posts, there is no evidence presented and no logical exposition, just a string of jejune cliches that are themselves content free. It is a sad commentary on our public schools to see this sort of thing posted for the world to see.

The anonymity of the Internet is, IMO, the cause of that. Were these folks to have found themselves in a forum such as those of Ancient Greece or Rome, they'd find themselves laughed out or declared comics.

Lol, really?

I think William F Buckley, George will, Charles Krauthammer, and Pat Buchanan can handle themselves well enough, thank you.

Well, they can/could, except perhaps Mr. Buchanan. None of those individuals are the right wingers whom I had I mind when I read your remarks.

 

[rdean]

2. Allowing people to manage their SS funds like a 401k. the money is invested by people at the Social Security Administration who would hire the best portfolio managers and hedge fund managers to do so. Downside to this, of course, is that Congress cant keep borrowing from these funds, but I think Congress should ween itself off of Social Security funds any way.

3. A hybrid option of taking some Social Security funds out an managing them like a 401k and also leaving however much they want to in the system.

The reason for not choosing either option 2 or 3 is risk. Because SSI is people's money that is effectively being managed by the government, and because unlike one's 401k funds, it must be there when folks retire, the risk profile of SSI cash cannot be such that the money may not be there when folks are entitled to begin receiving what is effectively their own money.

The current investments of SSI, U.S. T-Bills is such that if that money cannot and will not be returned to SSI, there are bigger problems than whether folks, even many millions of folks, get their monthly SSI check. Also, even if folks were to accept a higher risk profile for their SSI money, and if as a result of their accepting that higher risk it occurs that they won't receive the SSI payment the program promises them, the country will still have an obligation to care for them under welfare and Medicaid.

Moreover, not receiving their expected SSI payments because the money was invested in higher risk instruments that lost rather than gained value leaves the SSI beneficiaries/recipients without money they expected to have available to pay their bills. At that point it doesn't matter whether those folks have an obligation to pay for their electricity, water, food, clothing, etc., if there's simply no money to give to their creditors, the creditors have to write off the debt and move on. You can't get blood from a turnip, no matter how hard you try.

That just increases costs for businesses, costs that get passed on folks who are to greater and lesser extents not depending entirely on their SSI payments. You see all the harganging and griping about paying the small pittance share of one's taxes that go to SNAP and other assistance programs today. Imagine what you'd hear were the situation compounded by having to make up for the shortfall in actual cash received by SSI recipients who agreed to accept higher risk profiles and lost rather than made out. We'd find ourselves in outright and open revolt by the masses. That won't be good for anyone, not even and least of all the revolting masses.

Without any links, it's all speculation, or in this case, conspiracy.

 

[320 Years of History]

2. Allowing people to manage their SS funds like a 401k. the money is invested by people at the Social Security Administration who would hire the best portfolio managers and hedge fund managers to do so. Downside to this, of course, is that Congress cant keep borrowing from these funds, but I think Congress should ween itself off of Social Security funds any way.

3. A hybrid option of taking some Social Security funds out an managing them like a 401k and also leaving however much they want to in the system.

The reason for not choosing either option 2 or 3 is risk. Because SSI is people's money that is effectively being managed by the government, and because unlike one's 401k funds, it must be there when folks retire, the risk profile of SSI cash cannot be such that the money may not be there when folks are entitled to begin receiving what is effectively their own money.

The current investments of SSI, U.S. T-Bills is such that if that money cannot and will not be returned to SSI, there are bigger problems than whether folks, even many millions of folks, get their monthly SSI check. Also, even if folks were to accept a higher risk profile for their SSI money, and if as a result of their accepting that higher risk it occurs that they won't receive the SSI payment the program promises them, the country will still have an obligation to care for them under welfare and Medicaid.

Moreover, not receiving their expected SSI payments because the money was invested in higher risk instruments that lost rather than gained value leaves the SSI beneficiaries/recipients without money they expected to have available to pay their bills. At that point it doesn't matter whether those folks have an obligation to pay for their electricity, water, food, clothing, etc., if there's simply no money to give to their creditors, the creditors have to write off the debt and move on. You can't get blood from a turnip, no matter how hard you try.

That just increases costs for businesses, costs that get passed on folks who are to greater and lesser extents not depending entirely on their SSI payments. You see all the harganging and griping about paying the small pittance share of one's taxes that go to SNAP and other assistance programs today. Imagine what you'd hear were the situation compounded by having to make up for the shortfall in actual cash received by SSI recipients who agreed to accept higher risk profiles and lost rather than made out. We'd find ourselves in outright and open revolt by the masses. That won't be good for anyone, not even and least of all the revolting masses.

Without any links, it's all speculation, or in this case, conspiracy.

You know, I'm going to tell you quite directly. I've about had it with needing to provide links that illustrate elementary economics principles to the folks on this forum, most especially links for things one can look up and research on one's own. You want links, I suggest you begin with the ones I've provided all over the place on this forum.

 

[Unkotare]

....

You know, I'm going to tell you quite directly. I've about had it with needing to provide links that illustrate elementary economics principles to the folks on this forum, most especially links for things one can look up and research on one's own. You want links, I suggest you begin with the ones I've provided all over the place on this forum.

Wow, such vitriol from someone afraid to post anywhere but the CDZ.

 

[320 Years of History]

When I first heard about it, I thought it was a scam. Then I read what Politifact wrote and that convinced me it's a scam.

Bernie Sanders says Wall Street tax would pay for his free tuition plan

It's not a scam, but as Politifact notes, neither is Wall Street, or a tax on Wall Street speculation, going to pay for the entirety of his proposal. Moreover, states' participation in his proposal isn't a foregone conclusion, no matter how much it may be in their interest to participate. Thus the "mostly false" assessment Politifact gave is reasonable.

The thing that neither Politifact, nor Mr. Sanders, nor many other folks mention is that taxing Wall Street and requiring state contributions aren't the only means by which the program could be financed. Eliminating most of the corporate subsidies accorded in the tax code would pay for the program and require no state contributions or tax increases. Make no mistake, however. Such a financing method cannot be floated during a political campaign, no matter how populist be the general mentality of the nation during the campaign.

That approach cannot be floated at this time because like any program of the nature Mr. Sanders has proposed re: paying for college, it must be drawn up and passed as a Congressional bill. Until he knows the makeup of the Congress that must pass such legislation, publicly proposing such an radical (from the perspective of corporate America) isn't going to do much of anything except ensure Mrs. Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee.

Make no mistake, such an idea may well gain traction if Sanders gets elected. It kills many birds with one stone:

• shifts the largest segment of each taxpayer's existing tax payment away from corporations and to individual voters
• provides individual voters with something that can never be taken from them once they get it and that will be beneficial to them and their children for as long as they live
• doesn't ask taxpayers to pay one cent more than they already pay

 

[rdean]

2. Allowing people to manage their SS funds like a 401k. the money is invested by people at the Social Security Administration who would hire the best portfolio managers and hedge fund managers to do so. Downside to this, of course, is that Congress cant keep borrowing from these funds, but I think Congress should ween itself off of Social Security funds any way.

3. A hybrid option of taking some Social Security funds out an managing them like a 401k and also leaving however much they want to in the system.

The reason for not choosing either option 2 or 3 is risk. Because SSI is people's money that is effectively being managed by the government, and because unlike one's 401k funds, it must be there when folks retire, the risk profile of SSI cash cannot be such that the money may not be there when folks are entitled to begin receiving what is effectively their own money.

The current investments of SSI, U.S. T-Bills is such that if that money cannot and will not be returned to SSI, there are bigger problems than whether folks, even many millions of folks, get their monthly SSI check. Also, even if folks were to accept a higher risk profile for their SSI money, and if as a result of their accepting that higher risk it occurs that they won't receive the SSI payment the program promises them, the country will still have an obligation to care for them under welfare and Medicaid.

Moreover, not receiving their expected SSI payments because the money was invested in higher risk instruments that lost rather than gained value leaves the SSI beneficiaries/recipients without money they expected to have available to pay their bills. At that point it doesn't matter whether those folks have an obligation to pay for their electricity, water, food, clothing, etc., if there's simply no money to give to their creditors, the creditors have to write off the debt and move on. You can't get blood from a turnip, no matter how hard you try.

That just increases costs for businesses, costs that get passed on folks who are to greater and lesser extents not depending entirely on their SSI payments. You see all the harganging and griping about paying the small pittance share of one's taxes that go to SNAP and other assistance programs today. Imagine what you'd hear were the situation compounded by having to make up for the shortfall in actual cash received by SSI recipients who agreed to accept higher risk profiles and lost rather than made out. We'd find ourselves in outright and open revolt by the masses. That won't be good for anyone, not even and least of all the revolting masses.

Without any links, it's all speculation, or in this case, conspiracy.

You know, I'm going to tell you quite directly. I've about had it with needing to provide links that illustrate elementary economics principles to the folks on this forum, most especially links for things one can look up and research on one's own. You want links, I suggest you begin with the ones I've provided all over the place on this forum.

Republicans who believe in trickle down and think "supply and demand" is a wild liberal theory can't teach economic. Unless it's kind of a "comedy economics routine".

 

[xband]

Pay college professors minimum wage is how Sanders is going to pay for it. In a communist society everyone makes the same wage; doctors, lawyers and ditch diggers, the communist state owns all the land.

 

[Fishlore]

Why not remove the cap and let people have a choice of three options:
1. Letting it stay in the same program management scheme it is in. No change for that person at all.

2. Allowing people to manage their SS funds like a 401k. the money is invested by people at the Social Security Administration who would hire the best portfolio managers and hedge fund managers to do so. Downside to this, of course, is that Congress cant keep borrowing from these funds, but I think Congress should ween itself off of Social Security funds any way.

3. A hybrid option of taking some Social Security funds out an managing them like a 401k and also leaving however much they want to in the system.[/QUOTE]

This is a radical idea and one which makes me wonder about how deeply opponent of Social Security have thought through their proposals. Allowing the federal government to play the stock market would, of course, expose beneficiaries to the sort of risks the program was intended to avoid. Even more strange is the fact that having such a multi-billion dollar player in the market every day would result in situation in which the federal government swiftly became the major stock holder in a very large number of publicly held corporations. Such a a development would take the USA far, far beyond the democratic socialism advocated by Sen. Sanders and practiced in Scandinavian countries. We would have an economy structured like North Korea's. Good thinking, guys!